What did Jesus Say? For Discussion not Debate.

[exchemist]

If possible, I was hoping that this thread would not turn into a debate. That's why I chose this specific sub-forum and respectfully requested it in the OP.



On way to prevent this from becoming a debate is to focus on scriptural verses.

Besides that, here are examples of what I think constitutes debating. You will notice, they are all objections.

• "That is not accurate."
• "That is taken out of context."
• "You are wrong."
• "You are missing the point."
• "The source is flawed."
• "Irrelevant."

It's OK to disagree with someone and to state a disagreement. It's certainly OK to ask follow-up questions in order to better understand another individual's perspective. But asking questions like a prosecutor in a court-room, IMHO, is debating.

Does that help?

It helps me understand what you think debate means, yes. Anyway, no big deal.

 

[usfan]

It must be amazing to be right 100% of the time.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

 

[dybmh]

?
I do not understand your reproof. I have called nobody 'ignorant and baseless!', and only ..sometimes.. oppose the false narratives as they occur (which is often)

Im not stopping or bullying anyone into keeping their opinions to themselves. I believe in freedom of conscience , speech, and assembly.

I was being demure. I'll be more direct next time. If you want to know precisely why I said what i said it was because you said: "That's false" and made a generalization about what people were saying in this thread. I feel like comments like that may discourage people from contributing to this thread.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Are you speaking from personal experience?

No-- I've been wrong lots of times. But your comment definitely implied that you consider your opinion some how magically superior to everyone else's.

With respect to a book, written 1000's of years in the past, by a people who did not understand where the sun went at night.

 

[usfan]

But your comment definitely implied that you consider your opinion some how magically superior to everyone else's.

Ah, i see. Guilt by implication. I hope you're not on the jury if I'm falsely accused!

 

[usfan]

Here was the snippet, in a post about Jesus's teachings :

Pointing out significant details of the teachings of Jesus seems to be the point of this thread. Good idea. Lies and distortions abound, inplying 'Christians!' .... are 'commanded!' to kill everyone, hate everyone, oppress everyone, and bully everyone into believing as they do. That is false.

you seem to object that i am correcting the false caricature that, 'Christians want to kill, oppress, and enslave everyone!!' .. that is such a popular narrative here. I thought i was showing scriptural evidence against that false narrative. My bad. I should nod in approval, like the other bobbleheads..

Some wonder what 'new' things Jesus taught, regarding life and morality. Here's a specific one:
John13:33“My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.
34“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

This was the point of that post..

I respectfully request that you allow people to post their opinions in this thread even if they are, by your standards, ignorant and baseless.
Most of the readers will be able to recognize 'ignorant and baseless' when it happens.

Imo, you falsely accuse me, here. Others say provocative and polemical things, and you nod approvingly. I try to correct a false natrative with the actual words of Jesus , and you pounce..
I called NO ONE 'ignorant and baseless!'

It must be amazing to be right 100% of the time.

Good illustration of my point.. or the double standard.

I was being demure. I'll be more direct next time. If you want to know precisely why I said what i said it was because you said: "That's false" and made a generalization about what people were saying in this thread. I feel like comments like that may discourage people from contributing to this thread.

Ok, i give up. That narrative is NOT false, but is true. Christians are taught by Jesus to be aggressive, oppressive, murderous, and conniving. Someone has finally seen through us, and set the record straight.

With respect to a book, written 1000's of years in the past, by a people who did not understand where the sun went at night.

Exactly. People like that should be cleansed from humanity! They are sub human, and should not be protected.. they should be mocked and ridiculed!!
Only the educated, enlightened products of the official, approved Ministry of Education should vote, speak, and be privileged. The superstitious, stupid masses should be silent workers, to support the enlightened elite..

But perhaps this was just a bait thread.. set up the christian and ridicule his responses, which we ALREADY KNOW, will fit the caricature we have made of him. I don't know everyone well enough, to see if they are baiting, or who is, indeed, the Master Baiter..

 

[dybmh]

Imo, you falsely accuse me, here. Others say provocative and polemical things, and you nod approvingly. I try to correct a false natrative with the actual words of Jesus , and you pounce..
I called NO ONE 'ignorant and baseless!'

I didn't accuse you, bro. I said IF. And I already said I would be more direct next time.

I apologize if you feel singled out. I will do better next time, OK? I am just trying to keep this thread on topic.

 

[dybmh]

@ Everyone.... not just @usfan ...

here are examples of what I think constitutes debating. You will notice, they are all objections.
"That is not accurate."
"That is taken out of context."
"You are wrong."
"You are missing the point."
"The source is flawed."
"Irrelevant."

Pretend the question is not emotional: Like what is your favorite book? or what is your favorite food? No one would object to one person's personal choices in these matters. And to me, that is what it means to discuss. Let people say things which are inaccurate, and don't correct them. Ask clarifying questions, fine, but if someone wants to say that Jesus was teaching about green lesbians from Mars... I vote: let them say it unopposed. It's a discussion not a debate.

Pretty Please?

 

[usfan]

Let people say things which are inaccurate, and don't correct them.

No problem. I won't correct anything in this thread. I haven't corrected anyONE, but I'll extend that to anyThing.

And if falsely accused, I'll meekly accept it..

..in this thread, that is.

 

[dybmh]

No problem. I won't correct anything in this thread. I haven't corrected anyONE, but I'll extend that to anyThing.

Thank you. And your comment is helpful for me... I should have said 'anyThing'.

 

[The Anointed]

It wouldn't be as simple as that. There would still be the deep credibility problem arising from the sheer extent to which Mark can be mapped onto the Tanakh, and depending on how the astrology was phrased, the more blatantly obvious problem with magic in stories ─ indeed, not so much problem as falsifier. My own view remains that it's possible there was an historical Jesus (about whom we know virtually nothing), but that an historical Jesus is not necessary to account for Paul and the gospels, so I think it's 50-50. However, that's not the subject of this thread.

Well at lest you admit that it is only your personal opinion, to which you are absolutely entitled.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ah, i see. Guilt by implication. I hope you're not on the jury if I'm falsely accused!

not at all-- most people are guilty of believing their opinion is just as relevant as anyone else on the planet.

However, that's a false belief-- easily proven. Is your typical trash-truck worker an expert on open heart surgery? No?

There you go!

But the problem with all things faith-based? Is that, being faith-based, everyone's opinion is equally valid--

Which really chaps the chain of anyone who has a "degree" in ... faith-based stuff...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Here was the snippet, in a post about Jesus's teachings : you seem to object that i am correcting the false caricature that, 'Christians want to kill, oppress, and enslave everyone!!' .. that is such a popular narrative here. I thought i was showing scriptural evidence against that false narrative. My bad. I should nod in approval, like the other bobbleheads..

This was the point of that post..

Imo, you falsely accuse me, here. Others say provocative and polemical things, and you nod approvingly. I try to correct a false natrative with the actual words of Jesus , and you pounce..
I called NO ONE 'ignorant and baseless!'

Good illustration of my point.. or the double standard.

Ok, i give up. That narrative is NOT false, but is true. Christians are taught by Jesus to be aggressive, oppressive, murderous, and conniving. Someone has finally seen through us, and set the record straight.

Exactly. People like that should be cleansed from humanity! They are sub human, and should not be protected.. they should be mocked and ridiculed!!
Only the educated, enlightened products of the official, approved Ministry of Education should vote, speak, and be privileged. The superstitious, stupid masses should be silent workers, to support the enlightened elite..

But perhaps this was just a bait thread.. set up the christian and ridicule his responses, which we ALREADY KNOW, will fit the caricature we have made of him. I don't know everyone well enough, to see if they are baiting, or who is, indeed, the Master Baiter..

Wow.... lots of rhetoric. Little of substance.

Zero counter-argument. Inflammatory personal attack too.

Oh well. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

 

[blü 2]

Well at lest you admit that it is only your personal opinion, to which you are absolutely entitled.

If you approach the bible, whether the Tanakh or the NT, from inside faith, you necessarily arrive at a view of its stories in sharp contrast to the view of the historian, the one led by evidence, the reasoning and skeptical enquirer. These alternatives are perhaps in their clearest contrast with the miracle stories, which were part of every culture back then and have never gone away (still enjoying a ready market, as Disney and Marvel &c will assure us).

I agree with the presently predominant opinion that Mark is the first gospel written; this idea is no longer controversial. And while the process is long and full of exacting detail, I can show you how closely and repeatedly Jesus' proceedings in Mark map onto the Tanakh (scripture), idea for idea, and often enough relevant word for relevant word. This is against a background where neither Paul nor the unknown authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John ever met Jesus, and where each of the latter three can easily be shown to have used, by strong inference out of necessity, Mark's bio and (as FitzGerald's Omar put it) remolded the story nearer to the heart's desire ─ not for history's sake but personal theology's.

If there's a genuine human Jesus in there, then it may be that we glimpse him having perhaps some visible disfigurement or puniness that makes him say, 'you will say, physician, heal thyself' and which may (or may not) explain why 'King of the Jews' would be a biting quip to attribute to Pilate; or who, with the sole exception of John's crucifixion scene, never mentions his mother (or indeed his family) except with a snarl. It may be that his message was JtB's, Get ready, the Kingdom will arrive here on earth very soon, in your lifetime! But Paul never met Jesus, and hjs Jesus is a skygod who incidentally came to earth; and Mark never met Jesus, and invented all, or a very large part, of Jesus' bio, the only bio there is; and it's not necessary, even though it's possible, that there was a real person who was Jesus.

(Two curious sidenotes. Paul states that Jesus wasn't called Jesus in his lifetime, only after his death:

Philippians 2:8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.)
​

And David Fitzgerald adds that these words in the original are part of a poem in Greek, and that the words 'even death on a cross' break the meter ie are distinct by being unmetrical, indicating they were a later gloss incorporated by a copyist, and raising the possibility that Jesus met his death other than by crucifixion. It's not necessary to agree but It's interesting to contemplate how we know nothing at all historical about Jesus from records external to the NT, and not necessarily even there.)

 

[usfan]

But the problem with all things faith-based? Is that, being faith-based, everyone's opinion is equally valid--
Which really chaps the chain of anyone who has a "degree" in ... faith-based stuff...

Wow.... lots of rhetoric. Little of substance.
Zero counter-argument. Inflammatory personal attack too.
Oh well. You can lead a person to knowledge, but you cannot make them think.

You are so right. Thank you for the helpful and insightful criticism!

 

[usfan]

we know nothing at all historical about Jesus from records external to the NT, and not necessarily even there.)

Wonderfully said! And with such passion and sincerity! Your opinion must be the undisputed truth!

 

[usfan]

I get the idea.. no more illustrations from me, you all can get back to xtian bashing, now!

 

[blü 2]

Wonderfully said! And with such passion and sincerity! Your opinion must be the undisputed truth!

Sarcasm isn't the only shot in your locker ─ is it? We could always try reasoned and evidence-based debate ─ couldn't we?

 

[The Anointed]

If you approach the bible, whether the Tanakh or the NT, from inside faith, you necessarily arrive at a view of its stories in sharp contrast to the view of the historian, the one led by evidence, the reasoning and skeptical enquirer. These alternatives are perhaps in their clearest contrast with the miracle stories, which were part of every culture back then and have never gone away (still enjoying a ready market, as Disney and Marvel &c will assure us).

I agree with the presently predominant opinion that Mark is the first gospel written; this idea is no longer controversial. And while the process is long and full of exacting detail, I can show you how closely and repeatedly Jesus' proceedings in Mark map onto the Tanakh (scripture), idea for idea, and often enough relevant word for relevant word. This is against a background where neither Paul nor the unknown authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John ever met Jesus, and where each of the latter three can easily be shown to have used, by strong inference out of necessity, Mark's bio and (as FitzGerald's Omar put it) remolded the story nearer to the heart's desire ─ not for history's sake but personal theology's.

If there's a genuine human Jesus in there, then it may be that we glimpse him having perhaps some visible disfigurement or puniness that makes him say, 'you will say, physician, heal thyself' and which may (or may not) explain why 'King of the Jews' would be a biting quip to attribute to Pilate; or who, with the sole exception of John's crucifixion scene, never mentions his mother (or indeed his family) except with a snarl. It may be that his message was JtB's, Get ready, the Kingdom will arrive here on earth very soon, in your lifetime! But Paul never met Jesus, and hjs Jesus is a skygod who incidentally came to earth; and Mark never met Jesus, and invented all, or a very large part, of Jesus' bio, the only bio there is; and it's not necessary, even though it's possible, that there was a real person who was Jesus.

(Two curious sidenotes. Paul states that Jesus wasn't called Jesus in his lifetime, only after his death:

Philippians 2:8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.)
​

And David Fitzgerald adds that these words in the original are part of a poem in Greek, and that the words 'even death on a cross' break the meter ie are distinct by being unmetrical, indicating they were a later gloss incorporated by a copyist, and raising the possibility that Jesus met his death other than by crucifixion. It's not necessary to agree but It's interesting to contemplate how we know nothing at all historical about Jesus from records external to the NT, and not necessarily even there.)

What an imaginative mind you have there bluy. What a pity that is has no or little relevance to the Holy Scriptures, But like I have said, You are entitled to your own personal opinions."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In a previous, recent thread it was claimed that Jesus' message was to "be nice" and the rest was less significant.

What do you think? What are the important lessons taught by Jesus? Please share your opinion backed up with verses from scripture.

I respectfully request:

• No preaching
• No debating
• Limit responses to Jesus' words as presented in scripture

Thank you,

1. He taught people to be weak doormats.

Matthew 5:38-42: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Matthew 5:5: Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.

2. He required his followers to hate their families:

Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

3. He Taught People to be Depressed and Hate Their Lives:

John 12:25: Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

4. He said that Heterosexual Males Should Gouge Their Eyes Out:

Matthew 5:28-29: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell

Disgusting and sick teachings.